Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11509
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11359
 88-2-86-2-177
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Ronald L. Miller when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. Under the current Agreement, Mechanical Department Electrician D. A. Morgan was unjustly treated when he was dismissed on August 6, 1985 from the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines).

 2. That accordingly, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company be ordered to restore Electrician D. A. Morgan to service with all rights unimpaired, including service and seniority, vacation, payment of hospital and medical insurance, group disability insurance, railroad retirement contributions, with loss of wages, including interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

 FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Following his incarceration the Claimant returned to work with the Carrier in February 1984 as part of a work-furlough program. Before resuming his duties and as part of the Carrier's agreement to participate in the work-furlough program, the Claimant signed an undated letter of resignation. Between February 1984 and July 15, 1985, the Claimant worked under provisions of the work-furlough program. As of July 16, 1985, Claimant was absent from work without authority. On August 6, 1985, the Carrier dated the letter of resignation and separated the Claimant from its employment.

 The Claimant contends, without any documentation, that the undated letter of resignation was to have been destroyed six (6) months from his return to work in February, 1984. Without support, other than Claimant's assertion, a six (6) months' limitation cannot be read into the letter of resignation.
 Form 1 Award No. 11509
 Page 2 Docket No. 11359 _4W
 88-2-86-2-177
 The Organization has not convincingly established that any provision
 of the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization prevented Claimant
 from agreeing to link the undated letter of resignation with his return to
 employment under the work-furlough program. Clearly, such an arrangement was
 in the Claimant's interest. The Carrier acted with just cause, and without
 violating the Agreement, when it exercised its option to date the letter after
 Claimant absented himself without authority. Given the circumstances of this
 case, seventeen (17) months was not an unreasonable period of time for the
 Carrier to retain the undated letter of resignation.
 A W A R D




Attest:
        Nancy J. D Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of July 1988.
                DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS

                TO

                AWARD N0. 11509, DOCKET N0. 11359

                REFEREE RONALD L. MILLER


The Majoritiy Opinion contained in Award No. 11509 is in direct contradiction with previously issued precedent setting awards of the various Divisions of the N.R.A.B. and with total indifference to the applicable Agreement.
 Specifically, we direct the Majority's attention to that part of their findings appearing as follows:

        "The Organization has not convincingly established that any provision of the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization prevented Claimant from agreeing to link the undated letter of resignation with his return to employment under the work-furlough program. Clearly, such an arrangement was in the Claimant's interest. The Carrier acted with just cause, and without violating the Agreement, when it exercised its option to date the letter after Claimant absented himself without authority. Given the circumstances of this case, seventeen (17) months was not an unreasonable period of time for the Carrier to retain the undated letter of resignation."

The above cited findings are without foundation as indicated by recent Second Division Award No. 11514; likewise, dealing with an undated letter of resignation which by comparison properly states in pertinent part:

        "...it is our view that if he was deemed to be in violation of Carrier's Rules while employed as an Electrician under the IBEW Agreement the terms and provisions of that Agreement must control in the administration of discipline or dismissal for any employee working thereunder, unless, of course, an authorized IBEW representative agreed otherwise."

              'r

The evidence of record before this Board and Award dictum on this issue substantiates beyond any doubt that a travesty of justice has been committed by the Majority. Consequently, the findings and conclusions contained in Award 11509 are perceptibly erroneous, and to which we vigoursly dissent.

                              ~. ~. i"k'o


                              R. E. Kowalski, Labor Member


                              R. A. nson abor Member


                              M. Filipovic, Yabor Member


                              D. A. Hampton, Labor Member


                              ., ~, ~ ;, ~ ~

                              B. T. Proffi tt bor Member